halofanonfandomcom-20200223-history
User talk:Theorism/Ultimatum-class Heavy Battleship
, which is over one thousand metres in length and literally constructed around the weapon. It is plausible that a very small number of high tonnage warships would carry the SMAC during the later years of the war, perhaps one or two, but carrying in excess of 40 is unrealistic on a number of levels. **Firstly, power. SMACs consumed colossal amounts of power and were remotely powered by multiple sprawling ground-based power plants. Constructing a warship that could both carry an SMAC and be self-sufficient in meeting the power requirements would be an extremely difficult task. Powering 44 is simply out of the question, even post-war. **Secondly, size. As mentioned before, SMACs are huge. A warship carrying 44 of them would be unfeasibly large, especially if some of these were forward-facing and some were ventrally directed for 'bombing'. It's also highly redundant to have ventral MACs specifically for planetary bombardment; starships can move in three dimensions and would be capable of training their forward-facing MACs on ground targets. **Finally, there's simply no point in a warship carrying so many SMACs, even disregarding the infeasibility of holding or powering them. A single SMAC could do much the same with 44 times less mass and space, and actually be a realistic of being powered. *Concerning the issue of SMACs as planetary weapons, a single slug at full power would be more powerful than all the nuclear weapons ever detonated by mankind to date. Forty of these, I daresay, is overkill. *1000 Shiva missiles is also somewhat 'god-modded'. A figure like that is probably closer to the total number of Shiva missiles in the entire UNSC fleet. There is good news, though. I read a lot of rule-breaking articles where the only real solution is to start again from scratch because the issues are so fundamental, and telling the author that doesn't make me happy. In this case, the vast majority of the article's problems can be simply solved through changing a few numbers (with the additional removal of mentions to ventrally mounted SMACs for planetary attack). As I said at the start, this article is well written, and shows signs of being a compelling read once the issues are solved. No one likes being told to change things with their fanon, but if you can change the article in line with the above, I look forward to seeing what direction you take this. If you need help/advice/further clarification you can, of course, contact me or another administrator. Kind regards.}} Questions First of all, thanks so much for your suggestions. It really helps a lot, and I'll get right on it. I just had some questions. First of all, I've decided not to entirely eliminate the ship's boarded warships. I will, however, as you said, drop the number significantly (As in, down to a single destroyer and a few corvettes). But onto the questions. * Would I be allowed to simply change the existing onboard complement of 20 frigates and 20 destroyers to an escort fleet and have docking ports on the outside? * Is the Titanium-A a strict requirement? Would titanium carbide work? * Would it be okay for the ship to be slightly larger than Infinity by about 50-100 meters? Oh, and also, a question for an upcoming project of mine, * Could a ship with two standard MACs be considered a corvette? Would it be a frigate or destroyer? Thank you! Nerfs Is this good enough, or should I keep going? I'm going to format it a bit later. Thanks! Theorism (talk) 23:42, June 25, 2014 (UTC)